Uber Found Liable in Second Sexual Assault Trial
5/12/2026
On April 20, 2026, a Charlotte, NC jury found that an Uber driver committed battery against a female passenger, awarding the victim Brianna Mensing $5000 in damages. The verdict came after a four-day bellwether trial and only three hours of deliberation; the case is one of approximately 3000 lawsuits involving sexual assault and misconduct currently pending against the ridesharing giant in the federal court multidistrict litigation (MDL) set in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer.
Ms. Mensing’s case, selected by the defendant, was the second to go before a jury; in February, 2026, the plaintiff in the first case was awarded $8.5 million after the victim accused her Uber driver of rape. Both drivers denied the assault allegations.
Uber has long maintained that incidents of sexual assault are rare, claiming that 99.9% of the rides taken by female passengers are without incident. In commenting on the size of the award, counsel for the plaintiff wrote:
“Today marks the second federal jury this year to listen to the testimony of a courageous woman taking on Uber, one of the world’s most powerful companies, and find her assault claims credible.”
In response, an Uber representative argued that the company had strong grounds for appeal noting,
“The jury’s award represents a tiny fraction of previous demands, and should further bring these cases back to reality.”
Earlier in the litigation Judge Breyer had directed each side to select six cases to serve as bellwethers. The next four bellwether trials are expected to proceed in the coming months with two cases scheduled to begin on September 14, 2026.
$8.5M Verdict Awarded in First Uber Bellwether Case in Federal MDL
2/12/2026
On February 5, 2026, a jury in the first federal bellwether trail to be held against Uber Technologies awarded $8.5 million to a plaintiff who said she was sexually assaulted by her driver in Tempe, Arizona 2023. 21-year-old Jaylynn Dean argued that the rideshare giant was liable for the actions of its driver, alleging the driver had acted as an “apparent agent” of Uber. The doctrine of apparent agency holds that Uber, as a principal, would be held liable to the plaintiff for the actions of a third party, here its driver, if the plaintiff believed an agency relationship existed. The jury did not find for the plaintiff in her claims that Uber was negligent regarding the safety of its passengers, notwithstanding Ms. Dean’s statements that she had relied on Uber’s representations regarding the security measures it had undertaken when she chose to use the service. Similarly, the jury declined to find for Ms. Dean on her claim that its app was defective. Ms. Dean had sought $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages against the defendant.
During the course of the three week trial, counsel for the plaintiff argued that Uber was aware of the increase in sexual assaults committed by its drivers and had furthermore concealed important facts regarding the elevated risk of assault facing women passengers who traveled alone, were intoxicated or were traveling late at night, which ran directly counter to the company’s advertising that claimed that Uber was the safest option for women traveling at night especially if they had been drinking. They also pointed to Uber’s reluctance to include safety features such as in-car cameras.
In its defense, Uber maintained that its app only serves to connect passengers with drivers who are in fact independent contractors for whom the company bears no liability. Uber also pointed to the regular background checks conducted on drivers as well as additional safety checks it conducts to reduce the risk of sexual assault; the company specifically highlighted the fact that the driver involved in this incident had no criminal history and had received top ratings from other passengers. The company also argued that the driver’s actions were not foreseeable and that in 99.9% of all trips using Uber, passengers experienced no issues.
After the verdict an Uber spokesperson stated:
“The jury rejected claims that Uber was negligent and that our safety systems were defective. They awarded an amount far below what was sought and declined to award punitive damages altogether. This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do.”
Thursday’s verdict provides a road map for the more than 3000 lawsuits alleging sexual assault made by Uber riders. The next bellwether is scheduled to proceed in April, 2026.
Update on the Uber Sexual Assault Bellwether Trial
January 13, 2026
Jury selection in the first bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL, Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc., is still scheduled to start on January 13 in Phoenix. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Uber’s request to delay the proceedings after hearing the company’s argument that recent advocacy advertising that criticized the company’s record of safety had potentially tainted the jury pool. The advertising campaign, titled “Every 8 Minutes”, claimed that Uber receives a complaint of sexual assault or misconduct every eight minutes. Uber referred to the campaign, based on an August 2025 New York Times article, as “misleading” and pointed to the prejudicial impact it says the article had on the jury pool in a September JCCP bellwether proceeding in California. Uber’s attempt to block further publication of the ads was also denied by Judge Breyer.
The plaintiff in the case alleges that in 2023, her Uber driver raped her in Tempe, Arizona. Her case is the first of 20 bellwether cases selected out of over 3000 cases in which plaintiffs contend that, despite evidence that, since 2014, there have been numerous incidents of sexual assault involving its drivers, the rideshare giant refused to implement safety measures such as installation of security cameras and enhanced background checks.
Litigation Update: Uber Found Not Liable in Sexual Assault Case
On October 1, 2025, after a three-week bellwether trial in San Francisco Superior Court and a two-day deliberation, a jury found the ride-sharing giant, Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber), not liable for the sexual assault of a woman passenger in 2016. Known as Jessica C. throughout the trial, the passenger alleged that her Uber driver had assaulted her and cited Uber’s failure to warn or protect her as the cause for her attack. Although the jury found Uber was negligent with regard to the measures it took to ensure its’ passengers safety, it determined that that negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Throughout the trial, counsel for the plaintiff, Natalie Weatherford, argued that Uber had placed profits over its passengers’ safety, despite receiving reports as early as 2012 that riders and drivers were becoming victims of sexual misconduct and violence while riding in Uber vehicles. Moreover, Ms. Weatherford pointed out that the numbers of incidents reported were underestimated since Uber had consolidated all sexual assault and misconduct reports into 21 categories and reported on only those 5 that it felt were of the highest concern, omitting others that nevertheless included threats and sexual behavior.
The plaintiff also pointed out that Uber had resisted implementing a number of safety measures such as dash-cameras and failed to include fingerprinting in the process used to vet its drivers. The company had also delayed the implementation of a proposed safety program that would match women drivers with woman riders.
In response, counsel for Uber contended that the plaintiff’s claims didn’t add up, given the number of riders that used Uber every day, arguing that allegations of sexual violence are extremely rare with only 0.0002% of rides ending with any report of a safety issue. Representatives for the company also testified that the company worked to balance corporate growth with safety concerns; however, the Uber employee responsible for safety and core services testified at trial that passengers accept rides with Uber at their own risk, citing the rideshare giant’s terms and conditions. With regard to the proposal to pair women rider and drivers, Uber noted that there are very few women drivers and that there may have been legal ramifications in identifying drivers as women. The company also cited concern with highlighting any risk of assault that may be inherent in using the app in its current iteration. It should also be noted that a central issue involves whether Uber is liable for the conduct of its drivers. In those states where Uber is considered a “common carrier” there are attendant responsibilities to keep passengers safe and warn them of known dangers.
This case was part of a group of over 500 California cases against Uber that are consolidated in the Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP). The company also faces thousands more cases in the federal MDL also pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The first federal case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2026.
